Mike Peel wrote:
>I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
>a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an
>outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and
>validate that predetermined decision.
>(Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in
>conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)

I'm genuinely curious what you think a "Director of Brand" does. Other
than leading a rebranding effort, what does that role entail?

We're talking about the same organization that hired search engine
optimization consultants. For Wikipedia, a site with notoriously
incredible search engine results page placement. And even among the sleazy
underbelly of search engine optimization consultants, Wikimedia Foundation
Inc. partnered with a particularly bad group.

We're also talking about the same organization that unilaterally changed
its logo in a dramatic "fade to black".

Operating in good faith only works bidirectionally. When people are
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and making bad decisions without
community consultation, much less community endorsement, it becomes clear
that at least one party is no longer acting in good faith.

So, no, I don't think everyone is working toward the same goals here.
Should we have a conversation about the neglected sister projects?
Absolutely. This isn't it.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to